Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5962
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD
G. Radha Rani, President, R.S. Rajeshree, Member
1. M/S CHENNAMANENI INFRA PVT LTD Through its Managing director – Appellant
Versus
GOPARAJU SANJAY – Respondent
AE No.14 OF 2026|EA No.05 OF 2023|CC No. 67 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Lakshmi
For the Respondents: A. Naveen Kumar
Compelling a party to conduct cross-examination on the same day an evidence affidavit is served violates the principles of natural justice, and imposing costs for seeking reasonable time to prepare is unjust, regardless of the party's previous conduct in the main proceedings.
Headnote:The appeal was filed under S.73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, challenging an order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the District Commission-I, Hyderabad, which imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on the appellant for seeking an adjournment to cross-examine the respondent. The appellant contended that the evidence affidavit was served on the same day of the hearing, and compelling immediate cross-examination without reasonable time to prepare violated the principles of natural justice. The primary issue was whether the District Commission was justified in imposing costs on the petitioner for failing to proceed with cross-examination on the date of service of the evidence affidavit. The court reasoned that every stage of the proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, and insisting on cross-examination on the same day the affidavit was served is "unjust and arbitrary," regardless of the party's prior conduct in the main case. In the result, the AE is allowed by setting aside the docket order dated 09.04.2026 passed by District Commission-I, Hyderabad in EA.No.05 of 2023 in C.C. No.67 of 2021.
******
ORDER: (PER HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON-JUDICIAL)
01. This application is filed U/s.73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by appellants/opposite parties praying this Commission to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders dated 09.04.2026 in EA No.05 of 2023 in CC No.67 of 2021 of the District Commission-I, Hyderabad, with a direction to give sufficient time or pass such other orders in the interest of justice.
02. This application is filed by the petitioner, JDR/opposite party No.1, being aggrieved by the Docket order dated 09.04.2026, passed by the District Commission-I, Hyderabad wherein the District Commission has imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- upon the petitioner for seeking time to conduct cross examination of the Respondent/DHR on 09.04.2026.
03. The petitioner submits that, the respondent complainant had filed a CC against petitioners before the district Commission. In the said CC ex-parte orders were passed and due to non-compliance of the said orders, the respondent had filed an execution application bearing No. EA 5 of 2023, before the district Commission. During the course of execution proceedings, the respondent filed his evidence affidavit on 09.04.2026 and a copy was served on the petitioners. Upon which the petitioners have sought time to cross examine the respondent, as the counsel representing the petitioner had come on record very recently and that he had to go through the record and evidences etc. The District Commission initially denied time but later imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- and adjourned the matter. Imposing of costs without giving a fair chance to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Hence aggrieved by the said order the present AE is filed on the following grounds:
01. That the order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the District Consumer Commission is contrary to law, facts and settled principles of natural justice hence liable to be set aside.
02. That the District Commission gravely erred in compelling the appellants to proceed with cross examination immediately upon service of evidence affidavit without granting any reasonable time to study the same and prepare for defence, which amounts to denial of fair hearing and violation of principles of natural justice, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE (2015).
03. That the Commission failed to appreciate that the Counsel for Appellant had entered appearance only 2-3 days prior to the hearing.
04. That the right to cross examination is a valuable and substantive right and not a mere formality requiring adequate preparation, analysis of pleadings and documents. Compelling immediate cross examination renders such right illusory, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs K.T. Shaduli Grocery Dealer (1977) 2 SCC 777.
05. That the District Commission erred in law by imposing costs of Rs.5000/- for seeking adjournment.
06. The District Commission failed to consider the memo filed by the petitioner. Further under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and settled procedure, any document or evidence sought to be relied upon is required to be served on the opposite party sufficiently in advance to enable effective response and in the instant case, the evidence affidavit was served on the same day and compelling the petitioner to proceed with cross examination is violative of principles of natural justice. The Commission had mechanically insisted for cross examination.
07. The District Commission failed to appreciate that consumer proceedings though summary in nature are still bound by principles of natural justice and denial of reasonable opportunity cannot be justified on the ground of expeditious disposal, as reiterated by Honourable Supreme Court in India Assurance Co L.T.D. Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage PVT L.T.D. (2020) 5 SCC 757.
08. That the impugned order results in serious prejudice to the appellants, in as much as they are deprived of a me
